A priori knowledge

Originally posted by DeepThought
What do you mean by understanding? Knowledge is justified belief that is true. It's possible to know things without understanding them. I don't think it's possible to understand something without knowing it.

Okay then, I understand that the word 'understanding' doesn't work for you either. If one word can be found (able to express my meaning) I'm not immediately aware of what it is.

And I can understand why you wouldn't want to be put in the position of trying to guess, or glean from this any meaning not directly expressed with near infallible precision... this puts me in the position of trying to explain what I mean with the precision of a micrometer, but I suppose that is the way it will have to be.

Originally posted by lemon lime

Okay then, I understand that the word 'understanding' doesn't work for you either. If there is a (one) word to express my meaning I'm not immediately aware of what it is.

And I can understand why you wouldn't want to be put in the position of trying to guess or glean from this any meaning not directly expressed... it puts me in the position of trying to explain what is meant with the precision of micrometer, but I suppose that's the way it has to be.

Those fluent in lemonlimewaffle will understand that this is probably as close as you'll get to admitting that DeepThought has dismantled and picked apart pretty much every thing you've 'argued' for several pages. 😀

Enter the Dragoon

fits of fury

Originally posted by lemon lime
Enter the Dragoon

fits of fury

😀

Originally posted by lemon lime
Yes. Innate knowledge in humans would be equivalent to instinct in animals, because instinct can be defined as a form of inborn knowledge. Inborn knowledge is not the same as learned knowledge. Humans have a greater capacity for learned knowledge, but this doesn't mean knowledge must necessarily be defined as 'learned'.

Whew...translating English into English can sometimes be more difficult than translation of different languages.

So you're claiming that humans have an instinct that there is a God?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Yes. Innate knowledge in humans would be equivalent to instinct in animals, because instinct can be defined as a form of inborn knowledge. Inborn knowledge is not the same as learned knowledge. Humans have a greater capacity for learned knowledge, but this doesn't mean knowledge must necessarily be defined as 'learned'.

Whew...translating English into English can sometimes be more difficult than translation of different languages.

I remember talking to a Mormon once, we were using the same words to
say two completely different things. 🙂

Originally posted by KellyJay
I remember talking to a Mormon once, we were using the same words to
say two completely different things. 🙂

I don't get it. Why express interest in what is said if there is no interest in what is meant? Is this supposed be a game of gotcha?

"But you said this, and then you said that, and you said the same thing before and now you're saying it again in a different way... what's up wit that?"

good grief

Originally posted by DeepThought
So you're claiming that humans have an instinct that there is a God?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2021:15-17&version=KJ21

Originally posted by lemon lime
I don't get it. Why express interest in what is said if there is no interest in what is meant? Is this supposed be a game of gotcha?

"But you said this, and then you said that, and you said the same thing before and now you're saying it again in a different way... what's up wit that?"

good grief

LOL I think it took me 2 hours to figure out what he meant. 🙂

Originally posted by lemon lime
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2021:15-17&version=KJ21

14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them. 15 And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased, 16 and said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise? 17 And he left them, and went out of the city into Bethany; and he lodged there.
Matthew 21:14-17
Authorised King James Version

the word read seems to be referring to:

Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.
Psalms 8:2
Authorised King James Version

and it's not clear to me that this implies an instinctive belief in a Creator God. He seems to have been mocking the Priests.

However, you've managed to express what you are claiming. Then, your position would be that atheists are suppressing their instincts?

Originally posted by DeepThought
[quote]14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them. 15 And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased, 16 and said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; ha ...[text shortened]... t you are claiming. Then, your position would be that atheists are suppressing their instincts?

He seems to have been mocking the Priests.

The priests were in charge of knowing scripture. If they felt mocked it would be because the question came from a common carpenter and not from one of their own.

However, you've managed to express what you are claiming. Then, your position would be that atheists are suppressing their instincts?

Ignoring instincts and intuition is not unheard of. Books and articles have been written to encourage people to be aware of what their intuition is telling them, because over time we've learned to ignore and dismiss intuition as nothing more than a feeling. Atheism has its own reasons for ignoring (suppressing) instinct that can manifest itself through intuition, but suppression of instinct and intuition isn't necessarily limited to atheism... it's something that is learned and can affect anyone.

Originally posted by DeepThought
[quote]14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them. 15 And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased, 16 and said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; ha ...[text shortened]... t you are claiming. Then, your position would be that atheists are suppressing their instincts?

Psalm 8:2 may have been what Paul had in mind when he said:

1 Corinthians 1:27New King James Version (NKJV)

27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty;

Psalm 8:2 appears to differ in meaning from "Out of the mouths and sucklings thou hast perfected praise." This might have come from the same set of verses, and Jesus simply used one of the meanings from it in his reply. Or Jesus may have been referring to some other verse or set of verses... I'll do a word search on what Jesus literally said and see where it leads.

By the way, his answer was not inappropriate because he replied to a rhetorical question with a rhetorical question:

"Hearest thou what these say?" is answered with "Yea; have ye never read... ?"
The priests weren't asking if he was deaf, they knew he could hear. And Jesus knew they had "read" the passage he quoted because they were priests. Priests were required to read and know all of scripture.

Edit: my word search reveals 8:2 is a parallel found in a cross reference... it came directly from a google word search, so it doesn't necessarily mean this is the only cross reference to be found. The fact that the priest apparently understood the significance of what Jesus had said (the argument ended there) suggests his meaning was understood.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Psalm 8:2 may have been what Paul had in mind when he said:

1 Corinthians 1:27New King James Version (NKJV)

27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty;

Psalm 8:2 appears to differ in meaning from "Out of th ...[text shortened]... ce of what Jesus had said (the argument ended there) suggests his meaning was understood.

Edit: my word search reveals 8:2 is a parallel found in a cross reference

I meant to say Psalm 8:2 is a parallel...

Originally posted by lemon lime
Psalm 8:2 may have been what Paul had in mind when he said:

1 Corinthians 1:27New King James Version (NKJV)

27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty;

Psalm 8:2 appears to differ in meaning from "Out of th ...[text shortened]... ce of what Jesus had said (the argument ended there) suggests his meaning was understood.

This is mind blowing. I checked out a few cross references in my Bible and discovered a reason for why Psalm 8:2 is cited as a quoted reference, although it doesn't appear as a word for word quote. The notation Gk was next to the citation, and according to Types of Cross-References in the Explanation of Features section of my Bible it says:

The notations "(Heb.)" and "(Gk.)" indicate that the reference is clearer in Hebrew or Greek than in English. "(Gk.)" in New Testament citations of the Old Testament indicates that the reference is most clear in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament.

I also noticed when looking at Psalm 8:2 that one of the references there pointed to 1 Corinthians 1:27... so apparently that was what Paul had in mind.